SUJATHA HARINDHRANATH Vs. HARINDHRANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, II Traffic Court, Bengaluru, dated 10.2.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 24/2010 and confirmed in the judgment and order dated 28.4.2012 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 125/2011 by the Fast Track Court No. 13, Bengaluru city.

(2.) THE petitioner herein filed the petition in Crl. Msc. No. 24/2010 before the Magistrate Court under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the 'Act') against the respondent seeking protection order under section 18 of the said Act and also seeking residence order under section 19 and monetary reliefs under section 20 claiming Rs. 1,25,00,000/ - and Rs. 35,000/ - so also the compensation order under section 20(2) of the said Act for the amount of Rs. 50.00 lakh and alternatively, prayed that if there is no valid marriage between the petitioner and respondent, to grant the reliefs under sections 18, 20 and 22 of the Act.

(3.) THE respondent filed his objection statement and denied all the averments made at para Nos. 1 to 22 of the petition and further pleaded that petitioner is the daughter of younger brother of Sri. Basavalingappa. The entire episode is stage managed by persons who opposed to Sri. K.H. Ranganath to be the chairman, PES College. The respondent admitted that he married to one Dr. Rupamalini at Bengaluru in the Bengaluru Palace grounds and more than 5000 guests had attended his wedding. Himself and his wife are residing at No. 1852, I Cross, Prakash Nagar, Bengaluru. The said Rupramalini is a dentist by profession. They have two children, aged 7 years and 3 years respectively. The fact that the respondent is married to Rupamalini is known to entire Harihara and the number of persons from Harihara, Davanagere, Chitradurga including the elder brother, sister of the petitioner and cousin sister Sheela, daughter of Basavalingappa, the Deputy Commissioner and others had attended the wedding of the respondent. The petition itself is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitioner is misusing the provisions of law. Hence, sought to dismiss the petition.